> This is one of the most famous straw man arguments made in software development and I've seen it used against a plethora of different programming languages --

> This is one of the most famous straw man arguments made in software development and I've seen it used against a plethora of different programming languages -- each time completely missing the point that you can get bad developers writing bad code in any language. This is a fair point since I wasn't very clear, and I am talking about something that's fairly subjective and abstract. I think the more claims a language makes, the more open it is to failure. I just googled is "rust difficult to learn", and the first answer is "no". It's all relative, but I am sure that most of us have heard that rust does have a steep learning curve. The only other language that I can think of that advertises itself as easy is python. And I think it has a lot of faults in those claims too. But python does a much better job of being easy than go does. It's completely different leagues. Again, this is a messy point to make, either somebody understand what I am trying to say or they should leave it at that because trying to qualify ideas like this is fuitless. > I completely disagree. Having fewer keywords does make Go simpler to learn and simpler to read other peoples code. I really don't think skipping keywords like public and using casing makes things simpler. A quick google search shows that go has 6 less keywords than c. I mean, c'mon... > I say this based on 30 years of experience writing software in more than a dozen different programming languages. If you've had years of experience in old school c/cpp, then (I would assume) go will be a lot easier, and a lot better in comparison.